| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| The Euro Menace: The USE vs. The USA |
| 2003-06-16 |
| EFL. Read the whole thing. From Andrew Sullivan. Of all the remarkable consequences of the war against Saddam Hussein, one stands out for its sheer unlikeliness: The subject of Europe has become interesting to Americans again. In the run-up to the war, France and Germany revealed an unprecedented hostility toward the Bush administration's foreign policy. Americans noticed. France, in particular, orchestrated a global campaign to prevent the United States from deposing its former client, Saddam. And, since the war, France has continued to frustrate U.S. foreign policy—most recently when Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin visited Yasser Arafat, whom the United States has tried to isolate. Worse, with the unveiling of a new federalist constitution for a "United States of Europe" in June, the anti-American trend will be subtly but profoundly institutionalized. It's past time that Americans wake up and see this new threat for what it is. For the longest time, of course, America's approach to European unity was one of supportive neglect. In the wake of World War II, there was no reason whatsoever for the United States to object to increased Western European integration, the expansion of intra-European trade, and the pacification of ancient conflicts, especially between France and Germany. In fact, there were many good reasons to endorse and encourage increased European integration. But this analysis always obscured something at the heart of the European project. From the beginning, European unity was understood, especially in French eyes, as a counterweight to the global hegemony of the United States. The calculation was simple: No single European power could ever hope to approximate U.S. wealth, population, or power. Even the most formidable European nation—Germany—had a population only one-third as large as that of the United States. A nation such as France, with an ancient history of global influence and a recent history of military humiliation, looked to the European project as a way to regain what it had once lost. Beneath the patina of shared sovereignty, there was the dream of a new sovereignty—more powerful than any in the past. Britain's accession to the European Economic Community (EEC), long prevented by the Anglophobic Charles de Gaulle, was only embraced because it appeared at the time to represent Britain's retreat from its commonwealth and U.S. allegiances, and toward a new commitment to forging a federal European entity. Read the rest. |
| Posted by:lkl |
| #16 Sorry, the above blather was mine. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-16 22:20:30 |
| #15 Powell is military to the bone. What's Shroders excuse? I'm just ribbin' the Germans a little there, no disrespect meant. As far as better diplomats go, they won't help. As long as the left is as strong as they are, and they continue to look up to the French with the fondness equivalent to that of a puppy to it's master, and are willing to follow the way that same puppy would it's master, the French hold the best cards in the world of diplo-poker. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-06-16 22:19:43 |
| #14 Mike N, I myself can't fully understand why the French went so far. I think it was not just for some profit making with Saddam. They could have kept their share joining America in Iraq. The French have an agenda that doesn't really want to "undermine US security" (France has no interest in a collapse of the USA, nobody has). It's an agenda of "checking the superpower", the "cocorico" in the world. Wise politicians allow the French the "cocorico" where it doesn't hurt much so that France shuts up when it WOULD hurt. I don't believe that all French are that happy about the last months, I can't read lots of triumphalism in Le Monde or Le Figaro, but lots of worries about the French-American relations. The French idea of "multipolarity" is dangerous and nonsense as long as America choses to be a friendly power with Europe. I agree, we don't need a cold war and we REALLY don't need Europe siding with Russia or China against the "American hegemony". "If you underestimate their prowess in diplomatic matters, you'll lose your ass" Indeed, Schröder learnt that the hard way. But so did Powell. Let's get better diplomats then. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-06-16 18:58:07 |
| #13 The best policy on China is to leave them alone. Their adventures with capitalism and their communism are two divergent things. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-06-16 18:41:52 |
| #12 TGA, It was far more than bad managemant. I say again, France has-very recently- actively attempted to undermine U.S. national security. And, It was not to protect French national security, That would be understandable. It was merely for the potential profit at the expense of my security. Also, do not fool yourself. The French will be a very major power in the EU because they are better diplomats than any potential member. If you underestimate their prowess in diplomatic matters, you'll lose your ass. Saddam was no more in Europes best interest than Iranian nukes, and I don't remember a whole lot of EU nations helping out with Iraq. So forgive me If I don't think the EU is seriously going to do anything other than talk about Iran. Nkor? Europe is helpless to do anything about the Noks, and are going to stay away from the issue if at all possible. And as far as the real challenge of China (They are the answer to Nkor also)goes, I agree. I also feel that France will be nothing but an obstructionist in these goals,(Nevermind that Jaques visions of Multi-Polarity are a danger to the world.-We've already had a cold war. No thanks Jaques, we're trying to quit.) and if they have any power in the EU, they will turn the EU into an obstructionist organization of countries without the other countries even wanting to be an "obstruction". While Europeans may not define themselves by Rummies words, they certainly seem to hang on every one of them. It's almost like they fear his words, because they sure as hell don't heed them. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-16 18:27:18 |
| #11 Mike N, Europe doesn't define its "importance" by Rumsfeld's words. And France does have a disproportionate importance at the UN that it won't have in a United Europe of 25 nations (France might dream of it but it's not going to happen). I think that Schröder (hah I have umlauts) has realized that the French have taken him for a ride. Did you notice that the EU is getting tougher with Iran? Iranian nukes are not in Europe's interest and I doubt that U.S. action against NKor will be met with a lot of EU (German) resistance. Iraq was... let me put it that way, bad diplomatic management of a crisis. Opinions about which side made the bigger mistakes may vary. Europe has no intention to chose enemies, neither wisely nor foolishly. But the United States is not the only country in the world that has (legitimate) national security goals (and interests). What we seem to have forgotten in the last months is that most of these goals are matching closely. I have said it before... the real challenge will be China. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-06-16 17:50:06 |
| #10 Well Andrew has his opinion and he may be right that the USE will be powerful politically and financially and useless militarily. On the other hand, there is a good chance that the USE will be useless politically, hopeless financially and remain useless militarily - with the only respect coming from university professors, NPR commentators and the like - similar to the Arab League. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-06-16 17:24:27 |
| #9 Aris. U.S.E. could be very good for both the U.S.A. and Old Europe. You seem to misunderstand me, however. It appears that you failed to read my statement for what it says, and read into my statement instead. I specifically said "While we don't see the EU having a different agenda as being neccessarily bad" you seem to think I said. "what you say does seem to indicate that every agenda that is "different" you immediately consider as *necessarily* bad and hostile." Now, I request that you go back to my previous post and read the part about France. In case you don't want to go back, I'll make it simple in this post. What we in the U.S. see as a potential problem, is the fact that one of the major countries pushing the EU (read: France)which will no doubt play a major roll has-very recently- actively attempted to undermine specific U.S. national security goals. That is our biggest concern. The other, smaller concern, is having to deal with our allies in yet another UN type environment where nothing gets done. Now, I personally think it will be nothing more than a European UN and I am all for it. I would like nothing more than see fail, miserably, something that Jaques Suckscock loves so much. TGA, I agree with you, but I think it's more out of European fear of being nothing, than threatening words from Rummy. And Aris, one last thing. Europe may want to choose it's enemies wisely. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-16 17:19:07 |
| #8 Mike, what you say does seem to indicate that every agenda that is "different" you immediately consider as *necessarily* bad and hostile. And since each independent nation (or group of nations), has by necessity its own agenda, that seems to indicate that you do think as hostile every country that is not under US domination. After all, UK vocally opposed you invading Syria. Evil, *evil* UK. You should take it over and not give it back. EU has done and is still doing more for peace, democracy and human rights in Europe than the US will do in a hundred years in the Middle East. And it's *we* who'll have a problem with *you* if you choose to undermine our agenda or European unity, as many voices there say you should so choose. Don't be our enemy and we won't be yours. But so choose to be, and you'll see how far the power of annoyance at American interference shall bring us all. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-06-16 16:44:39 |
| #7 Still hung up on that Old Europe thing are ya? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-06-16 16:36:50 |
| #6 Mike N. that was a most interesting statement. If Donald Rumsfeld ever repeats your last sentence he will promote the United States of Europe more than Giscard could ever dream of. He has done enough already in this respect, don't you think? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-06-16 16:29:52 |
| #5 It's all about money. Every European country's economy is in the shitter, they can't agree on reforms individually and they'll NEVER agree as a group. EU will be the next USSR, economically doomed, with the same Soviet satellite countries looking to the US for friendship. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-06-16 15:58:16 |
| #4 The largest problem we here in America see, is that the EU (If it lasts. Which we here in America doubt given that it will be a 'lil U.N. )will revolve around a quasi-socialist agenda which will be directly contradictory to ours. While we see England as a potential voice of reason, we also see that they aren't a member yet, and could-with a new PM-just as easily tow the Franco/German line. While we don't see the EU having a different agenda as being neccessarily bad, we are definitley leary (through experience-with France especially)of the EU actively undermining our agenda, and therefore our national security. At that piont, there is no way of avoiding the U.S. and the E.U. becoming hostile toward each other. One may wish to keep in mind the fact that we've already taken over Europe once, and this time we may not give it back. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-16 15:27:48 |
| #3 "One thing that could unify Europe is a clumsy U.S. intervention to prevent it." Indeed. But then the contradiction "That's the current challenge to U.S. foreign policy: how to prevent the new European constitution from becoming a reality" Don't try it. "...an entity that will be respected and listened to as a political power that will speak as an equal with the largest powers on the planet." Competition, yes. Friendship at eye level, yes. A hostile rival, no, that's not the intention. But hostile U.S. policy might push the EU into something it doesn't want. Isn't America the champion of free enterprise and competition? It may help both sides of the Atlantic to meet the challenges that lie before us. When Kissinger complained about that there was no number to call in Europe he failed to mention that the U.S. never wanted that number to exist. Get used to it. And let's stay the friends we (still) are. We both lose if we don't. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-06-16 14:11:40 |
| #2 European politics is dominated by the Left and the Left, worldwide, is animated by hatred of things they don't accept as legitimate, like America. No surprise there. But America's 'enemy' isn't European unity as much as it's the European Left. We should oppose their goals for European unity like we opposed Soviet communism. In time, and with the entry of Eastern European countries to the EU, the issue may go away as the strength of Gallic anti-American 'nationalists' and Euro-leftists is diluted. In the meantime, the US should push for bilateral deals on defense and economics with individual countries in Europe, especially the UK, Poland, and Russia. |
| Posted by: Ned 2003-06-16 13:56:51 |
| #1 Sorry, the above blather was mine. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 6/16/2003 10:20:30 PM |